A Manifesto For Creativity In The Modern Era

from the join-in dept

Multiple people have passed along this fantastic manifesto of modern creativity that was put together by five curators of an exhibition for Les Rencontres Arles Photographie called "From Here On."

One friend noted just how inspiring that graphic alone was, but reading the more detailed manifesto is worthwhile as well. It talks about just how much the internet and digital technologies have changes our lives, and changed the way art and creativity works -- in undoubtedly positive ways. Here's just a snippet of the larger piece:

The growth of the Internet and the proliferation of sites for searching out and/or sharing images online—Flickr, Photobucket, Facebook, Google Images, eBay, to name only the best-known—now mean a plethora of visual resources that was inconceivable as little as ten years ago: a phenomenon comparable to the advent of running water and gas in big cities in the nineteenth century. We all know just how thoroughly those amenities altered people’s way of life in terms of everyday comfort and hygiene—and now, right in our own homes, we have an image-tap that’s refashioning our visual habits just as radically. In the course of art history, periods when image accessibility has been boosted by technological innovation have always been rich in major visual advances: improved photomechanical printing techniques and the subsequent press boom of the 1910s-1920s, for instance, paved the way for photomontage. Similar upheavals in the art field accompanied the rise of engraving as a popular medium in the nineteenth century, the arrival of TV in the 1950s—and the coming of the Internet today.

Digital appropriationism
Across-the-board appropriation on the one hand plus hyper-accessibility of images on the other: a pairing that would prove particularly fertile and stimulating for the art field. Beginning with the first years of the new millennium—Google Images launched in 2001, Google Maps in 2004 and Flickr the same year—artists jumped at the new technologies, and since then more and more of them have been taking advantage of the wealth of opportunities offered by the Internet. Gleefully appropriating their online finds, they edit, adapt, displace, add and subtract. What artists used to look for in nature, in urban flaneries, in leafing through magazines and rummaging in flea markets, they now find on the Internet, that new wellspring of the vernacular and inexhaustible fount of ideas and wonders.

What I love most about this is how inclusive it is, and how much of it is about recognizing and embracing what an amazingly creative time this is for artists. All too often, we hear of artists who decry such things, who complain about the fact that their club doesn't feel as exclusive any more. For artists and an art exhibit to not just embrace, but joyfully celebrate the way creativity works today, while recognizing how these tools mean that anyone and everyone are creating art all the time, is really wonderful to see.

Reader Comments

more to the point, if it weren't so good a time and there weren't such an increase in creativity and artists, the entertainment industries would be moaning even more about how much they have lost instead of doing what they can to monetize things, without starting even more law suits

Hard to read

I was reading that graphic, and it reminded me entirely too much of House of Leaves. And it isn't only the odd cutout-style printing, it's the strange pattern of language and art theme as well. Anyone else agree?

"I love most about this is how inclusive it is, and how much of it is about recognizing and embracing what an amazingly creative time this is for artists."

Yes, but at the same time, failing to explain in the slightest how artists will be able to make enough of a living to actually be full time artists.

It's a remarkably creative time for uncreative people, using computer programs to generate "art", but it's a very tough time for very creative people that have to deal with not only increases in competition for people's attention and time, but also in a space that is losing income - and having to share that with more people as well.

Re: Re:

I know not creative, like Marcus trying to be a rapper. Now that's not creative - funny as fuck, but not creative.

The problem is when the barrier to "creative" is lowered to the point where anyone qualifies, you still don't get any more amazing, top of the line stuff. You get Marcusrap, or is that MarcusCrap.

Mike is playing the creativity card in the same way that the MPAA counts people working in their industry. If you really work hard, you can make the numbers work out, otherwise, they are both full of shit.

Re: Re: Re:

Sorry but being creative like time is relative to teh observer. you cannot state what I find creative, what someone else finds creative unless you actually ask them, you might guess correctly, but its a guess and people DONT always tell teh truth when people ask them what they like (standard human psych)

There is now NO barrier to create, and the way you have defined it as a barrier means you want it controlled.. What for? for your agenda? certainly not for mine, and probably not the rest of the people on the planet that don't give a flying crap whether old school gatekeeper artists (Bullshit artists more nowadays) are needed or not.

Everyone is unique in their likes and dislikes, placing your criteria on them is highly immoral and exactly like what you suspect the MPAA of doing. Your trying to cook the books with your designated barriers like they are and probably for the same power play reasons.

This isn't a dig at you personally, its just your idea that you need to specify some criteria for something that is a conceptual human idea is one of the major problems that you are accusing others of. Think!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

you forgot to mention the subliminal message that if you slow it down to 1 frame per second and play it backwards whilst on a TSR-80 it hypnotises you to believe that "Marcus is a God and all trolls shall bow down before him"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Your evaluation of Marcus' rap/hip hop creations is your personal opinion and it's worth what it's worth. To you. The rest of the world may not agree with you.

And who are you to define "art" or "creation" or "creativity"? Unless, of course, like some kind of Edwardian pooh bah who was sure that the masses, uneducated or outsiders had no idea what art is and so defined it for them/us. I had quite enough of that in High School English courses, thank you very much.

Artists will make an income largely the way they always have which is by the sale of their works. Directly or indirectly. Creators will create and earn their living from their creations much as they always have whether it's something as small as the creation of an attractive front yard garden all the way to the creation of something like Buchart Gardens. ( http://www.butchartgardens.com )

The creative and arts field has always been crowded. It's always been hard to earn a living exclusively from the artist's chosen medium. It was that way before the Internet and it's still that way.

I've known a number of artists in my life and none of them are full time in the sense of a 40 hour work week. Even those who earn a comfortable living from it.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Your evaluation of Marcus' rap/hip hop creations is your personal opinion and it's worth what it's worth. To you. The rest of the world may not agree with you."

Thankfully, the world in general has proven to find Marcus's musing to be about as high quality as runny dog poop. His hit count on youtube, example, is very close to zero. He's just not very good at what he does. That isn't to pass judgement on a style of music, but rather to say that his talent level is similar to a 6 year old with a Mr Microphone.

"I've known a number of artists in my life and none of them are full time in the sense of a 40 hour work week. Even those who earn a comfortable living from it."

One of the things about (true) artists is that while they don't appear to be working, they are often considering their next piece or assembling the requirements for them. There is no 40 hour work we as we would define, but often a 24/7 mental dedication to their art. Their lack of apparent action on the outside doesn't mean they aren't working on it.

Re:

Sir, we promise to get off of your lawn soon. I must say that I take offense to your thesis that creative work cannot be made on a PC. Last time I checked, 98.4% of a Michael Bay movie is composed of CG (if you don't know what the 'C' stands for in that feel free to respond).

It is entirely possible for artists to reach their audience and sell their work online, and here's the important part...without a middle-man.

That fact is what terrifies the useless Luddites. The paper pushers are no longer needed, now they'll have to find some other way to milk money without contributing anything to society. I hear Walmart is always looking for greeters...

Re:

"full time artists" Isn't that an oxymoron, moron? You guys act as if these "full-time" artists are working 40-50 hours a week. Truth be told most bands that tour do so 3-4 days a week for maybe 4-6 hours a day. Including time at the venue from sound check, to doors, to the end of the show. Oh woe is them, the life of a rock star, boo hoo. Ive been at recording sessions. Anyone who calls it work is flat out lying.

"It's a remarkably creative time for uncreative people, using computer programs to generate "art" You are the sole judge of what is and is not art now? Talk about entitlement issues. You believe you can force your view of whats art on the rest of the world, and that shows your ilk's mindset.

"it's a remarkably creative time for uncreative people, using computer programs to generate "art", but it's a very tough time for very creative people that have to deal with not only increases in competition for people's attention and time, but also in a space that is losing income - and having to share that with more people as well."
Hey buggy maker, its called change, adapt or die.

Re: Re:

Whoooooooooooooooosh! Right over your head.

It's not "buggy maker", it's enlightened self interest. I would rather that 100 good artists can make a living and create great art, instead of 1000 people all winging it on the cheap, working day jobs and turning out MarcusCrap and thinking they are artists - while they have taken just enough money away from the real artists that they can no longer afford to do it full time.

The world is a better place with one Lennon / McCartney duo than it is with 1000 Marcus types.

Nothing to do with getting off the lawn, it's about knowing good from bad.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Riiiight...and McCartney and Lennon wouldn't have made amazing works of art if it weren't for the millions of dollars and legions of groupies. I hate to break it to you, but real artists, enjoy creating art for the sake of art. Getting paid is nice, but I'd rather see 10,000 artists make $50,000 per year than 100 artists make $5,000,000 per year.

Re: Re: Re:

"Nothing to do with getting off the lawn, it's about knowing good from bad."

Then again, you don't get to decide what's good or bad for others.

Never fear, though, the Lennon/McCartney duo's will rise to the top as cream does if they want to no matter what.

And it's long past time you understood that most artists DO work day jobs. Often in a related field to their art but they do work day jobs. And there's nothing at all wrong with that. In fact it may stimulate them by exposing them to sights, people and situations they wouldn't otherwise be exposed to.

Re: Re: Re:

"I would rather that 100 good artists" Who the fuck are you to judge? What an entitled piece of shit you are. Art/music is subjective.

"the world is a better place with one Lennon / McCartney" I hate Lennon/McCartney/Beatles. Their songs suck to me. [Whiney voice] She loves you yeah yeah yeah, what crap... to me.

Are you that thick headed that you cannot grasp beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Really?

Who's paying you to be here?

"Nothing to do with getting off the lawn, it's about knowing good from bad."
Are you boB? It appears so. Good from bad for you, is different for others and if you cannot grasp that I can come to no other conclusion that you must be mentally challenged and there is nothing this community can do to help you. Please seek professional help.

Re: Re: Re:

Ha, even with the gatekeepers in place, crappy art (in the broad general sense of the word) still gets put out.

So then there's no real difference in a world where the record companies attempt to produce the next Lennon/McCartney duo 40 times over. You can deny that all you want, but when the MPAA and RIAA find something that is successful, they milk the crap out of it in the same way all the "crappy" artists with free reign do.

Re: Re: Re:

I would rather that 100 good artists can make a living and create great art, instead of 1000 people all winging it on the cheap, working day jobs and turning out MarcusCrap and thinking they are artists - while they have taken just enough money away from the real artists that they can no longer afford to do it full time.

And I would rather have 1000 pieces of art to decide which I like the most, as opposed only 100. That's just my opinion, but it's as valid as your opinion is.

As for your "real artists" having to actually work for a living I have very little sympathy for that. Most everyone else has to work to live and uses their spare time for the things they love. Artists aren't all that special to me. Sorry.

Re: Re:

""full time artists" Isn't that an oxymoron, moron? You guys act as if these "full-time" artists are working 40-50 hours a week. Truth be told most bands that tour do so 3-4 days a week for maybe 4-6 hours a day. Including time at the venue from sound check, to doors, to the end of the show. Oh woe is them, the life of a rock star, boo hoo. Ive been at recording sessions. Anyone who calls it work is flat out lying."

Ha! Maybe for a HOBBYIST band just dicking around to earn extra rent money. Try looking at REAL musicians in the field like movie composers that work all day EVERY day for 2+ weeks straight (you can research that if you don't believe me!) or the bands that DON'T suck and actually work a LOT more than 6 hrs a day. And that touring part (which IS actually more than 3-4 days btw) is done AFTER months of writing, producing and rehearsals all day. The big label mass produced garbage doesn't take real work to create, but don't you dare insult those of us that actually have talent by saying we don't do work. Because most professionals work a LOT more hours than 40 a week, unless if they just teach in a school.

Oh, and the reason why recording sessions are "easy" to an observer like you is because music is CONCERT READY by the time the artist gets into the studio; so of course it's only gonna take an hour or two to get everything done. And on top of that, it might take the recording engineers another day or two's worth of work to get it CD ready.

Re:

Yes, but at the same time, failing to explain in the slightest how artists will be able to make enough of a living to actually be full time artists.

Wait, why is that a requirement again? Even if that is or becomes true, do you really think art won't be created regardless? I am not worried, humans will always create art, if for nothing more than the simple joy of creating.

It's a remarkably creative time for uncreative people, using computer programs to generate "art", but it's a very tough time for very creative people that have to deal with not only increases in competition for people's attention and time, but also in a space that is losing income - and having to share that with more people as well.

Yes, yes, we all know the club isn't as exclusive as it used to be. So what? As a whole society gets more art.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"There is nothing to guarantee you get paid for the work you do, for any industry."

Oh, so you are saying you and everyone else aren't guaranteed a check on payday? Interesting.

But hey. All of us creators should just work on our craft an hour or two a day after working a "real job" all day like the bitter people who couldn't make it in their industry want us to. A musician working on their next album? A scientist researching the next great thing for humanity? The next picasso working on their masterpieces? YOU GUYS AREN'T DOING REAL WORK! Get a job and use your spare time for what you love. I couldn't make it and had to get a "real job," so you should have to as well! BAH HUMBUG!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Get a job and use your spare time for what you love. I couldn't make it and had to get a "real job," so you should have to as well! BAH HUMBUG!

That's what I think is the problem with much of the world economy these days. Too many people doing work they don't like to make stuff we don't need. It's a treadmill that doesn't serve us well and isn't likely sustainable.

To create more balance means rearranging a lot of pieces so that everyone has more free time, people aren't tied to their jobs because of health insurance, we downsize so that we aren't tied to bills we're working to pay, and so on.

A big problem for current and perhaps future generations is a massive college debt that forces people to take jobs they may not like to pay off those bills.

An economy that allows a proper balance of family time, necessary work time, and creative time would be ideal and is doable, but means changing the status quo. And there is recognition of it among at least some groups. The Tiny House movement is an exercise in right-sizing one's living space. People choosing not to buy cars and instead walking, biking, using public transportation, and renting cars as needed is another step. Another movement is urban gardening, which turns empty lots into sources of local food.

In terms of people not being guaranteed a job, yes that is our reality and even if you have a job today, that doesn't mean it won't disappear tomorrow. So I don't think there is as much difference between people working for a living and artists trying to make it as some might suggest. We're in the middle of an economic transition and there's likely a lot of disruption still ahead of us.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"That's what I think is the problem with much of the world economy these days. Too many people doing work they don't like to make stuff we don't need. It's a treadmill that doesn't serve us well and isn't likely sustainable."

STOP IT! You're making *way* too much sense. Encouraging scientists and artists to create our culture (yes, science is culture too if you ask me) instead of giving up and being a cubicle monkey? Blasphemy!

"A big problem for current and perhaps future generations is a massive college debt that forces people to take jobs they may not like to pay off those bills."

I have to disagree a bit with this. While college IS stupidly expensive and doesn't have the quality it used to due to budget cuts, people need to be more financially responsible. If the only way you can go to your "dream school" is to get up to your ass in debt, don't bitch when it comes time to actually pay back that 200k+. As a music major, I would have LOVED to go to Julliard or Curtis instead of a good ol' state U, but I do not have the 50k a semester required to go and I'm sure as hell not stupid enough to take out the huge ass loan required to go.

"People choosing not to buy cars and instead walking, biking, using public transportation, and renting cars as needed is another step."

Definitely agree with that too, although some people don't have the (VERY) important option of public transportation. No problem for people in NYC or LA since they have a zillion options, but people like me live in an area where we don't even have a reliable bus system to use.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I hear you. You don't need to go so heavily into debt to go to college, and I recommend that people don't.

As for public transportation, yes, that too. It's not everywhere. What I am hoping is that as car ownership becomes less of an image thing, there will be more openness to funding/supporting alternatives. This won't happen overnight.

My main point, which you got, is not to bitch about people who are looking to incorporate more creativity into their lives. Rather, let's find more ways to make work more enjoyable/meaningful. That means re-examining priorities across the economy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"My main point, which you got, is not to bitch about people who are looking to incorporate more creativity into their lives. Rather, let's find more ways to make work more enjoyable/meaningful. That means re-examining priorities across the economy."

And I look forward to seeing how "real jobs" can manage to make what seems like menial, boring work more enjoyable. I also hope it stops some of the delusional people on here who seem to think that all professional productions will give way to amateur created content...you can't possibly compare the weekend warrior creating music or a film in their spare time for fun to a professional doing it for a living. Especially on the latter. I would NOT want wonderful productions like frozen planet being attempted by amateurs! Please leave that to the professionals who actually have the time, funding and patience to sit in Antarctica for months on end getting footage of penguins...LOL.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

And I look forward to seeing how "real jobs" can manage to make what seems like menial, boring work more enjoyable.

You automate as much as possible, and as productivity increases, you reduce work weeks. It's not a new concept. Right now we have some people working more hours than they want and others working less than they want. We've currently got a system where there are some very high paying jobs (e.g., people on Wall Street making hundreds of thousands of dollars moving numbers around) and others making very little money serving hamburgers and working in nursing homes.

I think automation will continue and even many of the high tech workers making good money will be replaced in the future. The goal isn't really to create "work" for people, but to provide at least a basic standard of living. If that can be done while reducing shitty jobs and overtime, let's go for it. An economy geared to making a few people very wealthy while lots of other people are just getting by could use some fine-tuning.

I don't think we'll completely eliminate boring tasks, but perhaps those boring tasks can be better spread around so the burden doesn't fall on one subset of people to do them. Whenever possible, have a machine do the boring task. It doesn't complain.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

you can't possibly compare the weekend warrior creating music or a film in their spare time for fun to a professional doing it for a living. Especially on the latter. I would NOT want wonderful productions like frozen planet being attempted by amateurs! Please leave that to the professionals who actually have the time, funding and patience to sit in Antarctica for months on end getting footage of penguins...LOL.

Here's why I see a need for a major economic remake.

1. If the middle class continues to disappear, then they may not have the money to support those expensive arts projects. Therefore, we won't be able to support a group of professional artists anyway if their potential customers are broke.

2. If we had an economic system that provided everyone with a decent living with a minimal amount of time spent on jobs they hate, then they could be free to go to Antarctica to film those penguins. If their bills were paid, it wouldn't whether what they produced was salable. They'd just do it because they wanted to do it. Maybe the result would be great. Maybe not. But as long as they didn't have to recover the cost of those projects and pay their living expenses, they would be free to create as they wished.

Re: I got some art for you

(Pinocchio)
I got no strings to hold be down
To make me fret or make me frown
I had strings, but now I'm free
I got no strings on me

[Verse 1]
Step into the club smoothly with a L in my hand
Bit*hes know that I'm a freak like the elephant man
Intelligent plans
Fuck a record deal, I want development land
With my benevolent clan
And that's the reason that I only trust my fam
40,000 records sold, 400 grand
Fuck a middle man, I won't pay anyone else
I'll bootleg it and sell it to the streets myself
I'd rather be that than signed and stuck on a shelf
And because of this executives try to diss me
Racism frozen in time like Walt Disney
And now they say they wanna get me signed to the majors
If I switch up my politics and change my behavior
Try to tell me what to rhyme about over the beat
Bitch niggas that never spent a day in the street
But I repeat that nobody can hold my reigns
I put the truth on tracks nigga, simple and plain

(Pinocchio)
I got no strings, so I have fun
I'm not tied up when we need one
They've got strings but you can see
There are no strings on me!

[Verse 2]
I guess to America I'm a disaster
A slave that was destined to own his masters
Independent in every single sense of the word
I say what I want, you fuckin little sensitive herb
This is America, I thought we had freedom of speech
But now you want try to control the way that I speak
And O'Reilly you think that you a patriot?
You ain't nothing but a motherfuckin racist bitch
Fulla hatred, pressin a button trying to inject me
But I ain't got no motherfuckin deal with Pepsi
No corporate sponser telling me what to do
Asking me to tone it down during the interview
Tryin' to minimize the issue, but I'm keeping it large
I love the place that I live, but I hate the people in charge
Speakin is hard when you got strings attached
So I'm a say it for you 'cause I ain't got none o' that
And if you didn't understand what I spit at your brain
Aiyyo son, let this little nigga explan:

(Pinocchio)
I got no strings, so I have fun
I'm not tied up when we need one
They've got strings but you can see
There are no strings on me!

Come on son, y'all niggas know the way I do
Immortal Technique dot com live for you
And I know sometimes it be making you nervous
The way I snatch puppet rappers that belong in a circus
You motherfuckers just can't compare
Looking for a fan base that's no longer there
I know that you're scared, and you're hidin' up in the cut
But this is freedom of speech nigga, tell 'em what's up

Word nigga, fuck John Ashcroft! Nigga, fuck Fox News! Fuck those snake-ass
bitches Tryin to manipulate your opinion, tellin you what to think
Word the fuck up, like "we invaded niggas 'cause we want to free them"
You racist motha fu*ka, you don't give a shit about those people
You can suck my d*ck!!
(hahahaha)

Another rum and coke at the bar, nigga
Its my day off, word up
Fu*k, for the kids, (ha) for the kids (hahaha

Re:

It's a remarkably creative time for uncreative people, using computer programs to generate "art", but it's a very tough time for very creative people that have to deal with not only increases in competition for people's attention and time, but also in a space that is losing income - and having to share that with more people as well.

I'd love to hear your definitions of "creative" and "uncreative," because over the past couple of decades the majority of excellent, highly creative works have come from amateurs. And there's more of it now than ever.

If your "highly creative" people are having a problem competing in the market, perhaps it's because their products and delivery systems are no longer fulfilling what people want.

The big media producers sell volume, and selling volume means producing something that the greatest number of people will buy. That, in turn, means the product have to represent the average taste, which means mediocrity. It means they have to sell vanilla. There's nothing wrong with vanilla, but it's not the most creative choice.

Perhaps the issue is that the internet and ancillary services have lowered the barrier of entry enough that people can make money addressing a smaller, more diffuse audience. That means that they don't have to produce something that will appeal to even the average person, but can specialize. That means more creativity and a much richer cultural landscape.

Re:

COULDNT AGREE MORE!!!!!!!!! To be openly honest I share many of the ideas of the text but you see hundreds of pages, memes or "manifestos" about "creativity" ... i`m a screenwriter and wow it`s damn hard to make a living out of a ___craft___. And yes everyone is posting their photos at instagram or other sites but they are not profesional photographers. Democracy of the means of production is GREAT but some of these posters usually understimate the tough job that means to earn a buck from art -most of the ppl taking their art or their craft more "seriously" have a hard time trying to earn a decent living. Many of these "pro-creativity" stuff also misses an important point: "creativity" itself not all the times equals art or craft, and most of the times doesn`t involve happyness at all if the only door semi-open for many "creative" people involves going into the advertisement industry or selling the usual "new" crap... If most talents are gonna be wasted by ppl not being able to gain more expertise and to dedicate their 100% to their craft then well, bring the enthusiasm down a notch lol cuz many of us are screwed lol. Gotta say that at the same time one has to deal with an increased responsability to take their job extra-seriously and make a "better than average" work. Lastly well, this kind of great announcements are not new: for example when photography was made "democratic" and anyone could took their own photos, most photographers found themselves in a similar place, however they still managed to stand apart from the average (not to dismiss other ppls efforts or be somehow "elitist" regarding art). Dada and surrealism did some statements that seem similar too claiming at the time that "anyone could be a poet"... Art became "inclusive" at the 20th century. As for this times being "amazingly creative"... i mean, yes, and prolly no at the same time. hard to say. cut and paste are not THAT big of a novelty... theres more offer, of course, of resources and of means but that doesn`t resolve the problem of many artists being offered only to ways to make a living: sell crap for the system or live crappily ever after :)

Re: Re:

While this manifesto concerns itself with the visual arts, understandable from the viewpoint the authors come from, it applies equally to works in music, design and just about any art form I can think of. Not just the Web and the Internet but the power of programs on our desktops, laptops, smart phones, pads and other computing devices we surround ourselves with.

Not appropriating the works of others simply to make money or out of disrespect for the works but out of respect for the source work and challenge to the person doing the remix.

As we're discovering the two dimensional world of copyright doesn't fit well with the multi dimensional world we're moving into. I'm not saying that copyright failed in it's original purpose or even repeating that it and patents have been stretched so far that they've lost their original purposes in favour of the notion of intellectual property complete with walls around it and expensive tolls to see or use it.

That doesn't negate the original purposes of copyright and patents or say that, till now, they haven't worked fairly well. But they aren't designed for the multi dimensional world we live in now so, of course, they don't work to accomplish their original goals.

This is the second manifest of it's kind we've seen recently. The first was the WebKids and now this one both stating, in their ways, the same thing. Like it or not, the world is changing as I type this.

What is a Final Product

One of the interesting points that doesn't seem to get brought up much is the definition of the final product. The "artists" (or IP rights owners like the gatekeepers) seem to think that when they are done, that is the final product and forever after, this is the final state of the piece. If PVC pipe manufacturers looked at their product that way, no one would be allowed to cut the pipe to the length needed because it would change their pipe. The same could be said of the producers of wood products. What if canvas producers were so protective of messing up their canvas with paint? Modern "artists" are "remixers". Whether it is "hubcap" art, or buried cars, or taking pieces of digital images or parts of existing songs and combining them into a new piece of art, they are using the next generation of raw materials. In the early days of electronics, the designer took discreet transisters, resisters, and capacitors and created a new electronic device. Now, the "components" are entire boards of electronics that are combined together to create new products. Could you imagine what would happen if a hard disk manufacturer could control what you could write to the hard disk you purchased from them? Sorry, no digital pictures, just word documents on this hard drive or I'll sue you. AND, they implemented the controller board so that indeed no digital images were allowed? It seems that the output of one "artist" or craftsman is just going to be the input to the next one. They need to get used to this idea (one that just can't be copyrighted).

A bigger revolution

Lately I have been posting a lot on Techdirt about the bigger world economy and how we are heading into a time when the old economic concepts may not serve us well.

And I keep posting this link for people who don't know there is discussion that extends beyond IP laws. It has to do with how we view money, organization, property and commons, resources, etc. I have nothing to do with this site, but it's a good resource to get people thinking about a really big picture. We have new technological tools now that may enable us to create an economic system unlike what has been available in the past. At the same time, we are running into limits of some available resources, so we need need to rethink an economic system only perceived to be working when everything continues to grow.

Re: A bigger revolution

Here's where the leap comes in and what even many of the Techdirt folks seems to have trouble getting their heads around.

What if it doesn't matter who does what? It all goes into the same creative pot. Collectively it benefits everyone. Whether you create a great idea or don't create an idea at all, you still benefit.

And if there is abundance for most things, there won't be scarcity, so you won't need to tie success to contribution.

But what about the stuff that really is scarce? Well, do you actually want to deprive people of clean air or clean water or enough food or adequate health care because they are too poor? If not, you come up with a system so that the collective wealth covers the basic necessities of everyone. Then whatever people want to do on their own in terms of projects they can do -- but those projects are still available for everyone to share. But what if those projects are tangible items and don't share easily? Then people can make their own copies.

And if one argues that if people aren't forced to work, they won't, Techdirt is always pointing to studies showing that creativity often isn't driven by money. So you don't need to bribe people to work. Now, for the awful jobs, you find ways to reduce or eliminate them as much as possible. And if you can't do that, you either share them, or you pay those who do those awful jobs more than you pay anyone else. Reward those who do what society doesn't want to do.

It's not enough to just talk about eliminating IP laws. To really carry it through, you need to think on a grander scale than that.